Search results

You didn't reference the website...you took material directly from it without attributing the authors. There is a word for that. Plagiarism. I mean, can you even explain what the relevance of this paper is to the point you're trying to make? Can you tell me where the 5.53% and 0.28% figures...

And? This is actually an argument that suggest we aren't experiencing anything normal. The record clearly shows long increases in temperature before carbon dioxide rises, but we know that isn't what has happened in the last 800 years. [/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/FONT]Nip nothing.

Also, if you're going to lift material from a website, you should cite it. Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

You can replicate it yourself. Vostok ice cores and the concentration in the atmosphere today. Outside the normal cycles of the last 420,000 years... I will get to the rest when I get home from work.

Here's a good indication that something unnatural is going on. A record of carbon dioxide from ice cores. The x-axis is years before present, the y-axis atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. Seems well outside the normal envelope for the last ~420,000 years. Yeah....must be a natural...

In the Obamacare thread, there's a lot of talk about what is and is not a devleoped nation. GDP, GDP per capita, bankrolling rich nations... in other discussions, arguments for status of developed, developing nations look at things like the degree of industrialization or the newish Human...

You said you 'believe' in your opening statement. You are way out there...I have posted studies and observations to support my position. You have simply denied them. You're a denier. Did you understand what a scholarly debate was when I challenged you? I don't need to refute past...

If you can't propose a model then you don't have anything. You just have belief in something, and you have no evidence. Straw man. I never claimed we know everything. We don't need to know everything. No, we don't really need to know everything to assess causation. I have given evidence, backed...

No, I want your model. I want to know how you can isolate what the cause of the warming is. Your favoured cause has to explain all of the past glaciations and interglacials. No more "natural cycles." I want a concrete case laid out. If you follow sequentially the references I gave, and the...

Of course anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases don't cause hair growth...they do cause warming though, and acidify the ocean.

It's not a mechanism at all for hair growth...how's your explanation coming along?

How about you show me the same, and then explain how your model makes it likely that this is all the result of some natural cycle. It's time for you to answer some questions, I've been indulging your selective parsing. Time for you to reciprocate. If this is your position, then nobody can say...

Ok. Not part of my references at all, this is a given to most people, but I'll explain why. The oceans (the largest carbon reservoir) are taking up carbon dioxide, not giving it off, and we know it can't be coming from plants as the terrestrial biosphere was net neutral until about 1980, when...

Ahh yes. And the anti-immunization folk...

Ahhh, gotcha!

No, but I work in biotech, and I know a thing or two about marine algaes (we need them to feed to larval fish and shellfish).

AGW denial, it's up there, with those claiming the moon landing was faked, Truthers, Birthers, all pretty much without any firm grasp on reality.

Then prove it. You can't submit a hypothesis which is untestable. That violates the requirement of falsifiability. My statement can be falsified. You could try to show that the satellites are in error, or that radiative transfer is wrong, or that there is no warming occurring as would be...

Do you know how science works? The first step is to formulate a hypothesis. If the physics are unknown, and you can't even postulate a theory, then you can't even attempt to design a study to test that hypothesis, let alone analyze the results. You don't have the statistical background to...

How does it sound like that??? I think it sounds like tongue in cheek...except that the sarcasm isn't subtle, it's plainly visible.